Advertisement

Journal of Cancer Education

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 1314–1322 | Cite as

Testicular Cancer on the Web—an Appropriate Source of Patient Information in Concordance with the European Association of Urology Guidelines?

  • Pia Paffenholz
  • Johannes Salem
  • Hendrik Borgmann
  • Tim Nestler
  • David Pfister
  • Christian Ruf
  • Igor Tsaur
  • Axel Haferkamp
  • Axel HeidenreichEmail author
Article

Abstract

Despite the continuous growth of the internet, little is known about the quality of online information on testicular cancer, the most common solid malignancy in young men. In our study, we analysed the quality, readability and popularity of the most popular websites on testicular cancer. Therefore, we performed a web search for the term “testicular cancer” using www.google.com. Fifty-one websites were evaluated for HONcode quality certification, Alexa Popularity Rank and readability levels. Furthermore, the websites’ content on eight major topics of the current European Association of Urology Guidelines on testicular cancer was assessed. Fourteen (28%) had a HONcode quality certificate and the mean Alexa Popularity Rank of all 51 websites was 54,040 (interquartile range 6648–282,797). Websites were difficult to read requiring 9 years of US school education to properly understand the information. The websites mentioned 80% of the guideline topics on average, revealing “prognosis” (59%) and “follow-up” (57%) as underrepresented subtopics. Furthermore, 12% of all topics were displayed incorrectly, particularly due to wrong information concerning “aetiology” (42%). Sixty percent of the topics were mentioned in an incomplete fashion, with less than half of the websites displaying complete information on “staging” (47%), “diagnostic evaluation” (49%) or “disease management” (45%). In general, online health information concerning testicular cancer is mentioned correctly on most websites. However, improvement regarding readability and completeness of the given information is needed. Nevertheless, highly selected websites on testicular cancer can serve as an appropriate source of patient information.

Keywords

Internet Germ cell tumour Websites New media Patient education Health literacy 

Abbreviations

BEP

Bleomycin, etoposide, cisplatin

EAU

European Association of Urology

EP

Etoposide, cisplatin

IGCCCG

International Germ Cell Cancer Collaboration Group

IQR

Interquartile range

SD

Standard deviation

TC

Testicular cancer

TIN

Testicular intraepithelial neoplasia

TIP

Paclitaxel, ifosfamide, cisplatin

VeIP

Vinblastine, ifosfamide, cisplatin

VIP

Etoposide, ifosfamide, cisplatin

Supplementary material

13187_2017_1249_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (21 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 20.9 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Fox S ( 2011) Pew research center: health topics. http://www.pewinternet.org/2011/02/01/health-topics-2/. Accessed 5 Oct 2016
  2. 2.
    Hale TM, Pathipati AS, Zan S, Jethwani K (2014) Representation of health conditions on Facebook: content analysis and evaluation of user engagement. J Med Internet Res 16:e182. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3275 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hesse BW, Moser RP, Rutten LJ (2010) Surveys of physicians and electronic health information. N Engl J Med 362:859–860. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc0909595 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dubowicz A, Schulz PJ (2015) Medical information on the internet: a tool for measuring consumer perception of quality aspects. Interact J Med Res 4:e8. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.3144 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Boer MJ, Versteegen GJ, van Wijhe M (2007) Patients’ use of the Internet for pain-related medical information. Patient Educ Couns 68:86–97. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lawrentschuk N, Abouassaly R, Hackett N et al (2009) Health information quality on the internet in urological oncology: a multilingual longitudinal evaluation. Urology 74:1058–1063. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.05.091 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salem J, Paffenholz P, Bolenz C, Cebulla A, Haferkamp A, Kuru T, Lee CT, Pfister D, Tsaur I, Hendrik Borgmann AH (2016) Online patient information on bladder cancer: concordance with EAU guidelines. Abstr. AUF Symp. 2016, Bonn, GerGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Broom A (2005) Virtually he@lthy: the impact of internet use on disease experience and the doctor-patient relationship. Qual Health Res 15:325–345. doi: 10.1177/1049732304272916 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Albers P, Albrecht W, Algaba F et al (2015) Guidelines on testicular cancer: 2015 update. Eur Urol 68:1054–1068. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gilmour J, Hanna S, Chan H et al (2014) Engaging with patient online health information use. SAGE Open 4:215824401455061. doi: 10.1177/2158244014550617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Borgmann H, Wölm J-H, Vallo S et al (2015) Prostate cancer on the web-expedient tool for patients’ decision-making? J Cancer Educ 32:135–140. doi: 10.1007/s13187-015-0891-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boyer C (2016) Health on the net foundation. https://www.healthonnet.org/. Accessed 10 Aug 2016
  13. 13.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66:7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Borgmann H, Loeb S, Salem J et al (2016) Activity, content, contributors, and influencers of the twitter discussion on urologic oncology. Urol Oncol 34:377–383. doi: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.02.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fung C, Fossa SD, Williams A, Travis LB (2015) Long-term morbidity of testicular cancer treatment. Urol Clin North Am 42:393–408. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2015.05.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heidenreich A, Weissbach L, Höltl W et al (2001) Organ sparing surgery for malignant germ cell tumor of the testis. J Urol 166:2161–2165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wymer KM, Pearce SM, Harris KT et al (2016) Adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines for Testicular Cancer. J Urol. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.09.073
  18. 18.
    Tasmanian Government (2014) Department of health and human services: assessing readability. http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/publichealth/about_us/health_literacy/health_literacy_toolkit/assessing_readability. Accessed 5 Oct 2016
  19. 19.
    Pruthi A, Nielsen ME, Raynor MC et al (2015) Readability of American online patient education materials in urologic oncology: a need for simple communication. Urology 85:351–356. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.10.035 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Walsh TM, Volsko TA (2008) Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care 53:1310–1315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dalziel K, Leveridge MJ, Steele SS, Izard JP (2016) An analysis of the readability of patient information materials for common urological conditions. Can Urol Assoc J 10:167–170. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.3578 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Breyer J, Rothbauer C, Ludwig B (2016) Quality of online health information on prostate cancer—adherence to EAU guidelines? Abstr. 359, EAU Congr. 2016, Munich, GerGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Madhuvrata P, Cody JD, Ellis G et al (2012) Which anticholinergic drug for overactive bladder symptoms in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD005429. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005429.pub2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Statista Inc. (2016) Worldwide market share of leading search engines from January 2010 to July 2015. http://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/. Accessed 21 Sep 2016
  25. 25.
    Borgmann H, Mager R, Salem J et al (2016) Robotic prostatectomy on the web: a cross-sectional qualitative assessment. Clin Genitourin Cancer 14:e355–e362. doi: 10.1016/j.clgc.2015.12.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association for Cancer Education 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pia Paffenholz
    • 1
  • Johannes Salem
    • 1
  • Hendrik Borgmann
    • 2
    • 3
  • Tim Nestler
    • 4
  • David Pfister
    • 1
  • Christian Ruf
    • 4
  • Igor Tsaur
    • 2
  • Axel Haferkamp
    • 2
  • Axel Heidenreich
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Uro-Oncology, Robot Assisted and Reconstructive Urologic SurgeryUniversity Hospital CologneCologneGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of MedicineMainzGermany
  3. 3.Vancouver Prostate Centre, University of British Columbia, Jack Bell Research CentreVancouverCanada
  4. 4.Department of UrologyFederal Armed Forces Central HospitalKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations